Any investor worth their salt knows that a company’s profit is only an opinion, while cash is a fact. A peculiar contractual dispute involving struggling Aston Martin Lagonda Global Holdings illustrates this point rather well.
Ahead of its initial public offering last October, the British exotic automaker published a prospectus detailing its recent financial track record. The perennially unprofitable company had achieved a small 20.8 million pound ($25.1 million) pretax profit in the first six months of 2018. Good news.
Yet the results reflected 20 million pounds of unexpected income booked on the sale of intellectual property to a third-party carmaker during the period. The unidentified buyer had approached Aston Martin about acquiring tooling and design drawings for the previous-generation Vanquish sports car, as well as ongoing consultancy support.
With contracts in hand, Aston Martin said it expected the cash to arrive in 5 million pound, twice-yearly installments. In hindsight, it wasn’t a good sign that the first of these payments was already overdue at the time the prospectus was published. More than a year after the contract was agreed, Aston Martin has acknowledged that it may never recover the bulk of the money. A disappointing set of results published last month included a 19 million pound, one-off provision for doubtful debt.
The identity of the recalcitrant counter-party had always been kept a secret, despite plenty of speculation in the automotive trade press about who would want the old Vanquish designs, and to what end. But during a call with analysts, Aston Martin’s management inadvertently spilled the beans. Detroit Electric, the China-based electric sports car startup, had sought the company’s help in developing a vehicle chassis system, but then failed to make the required payments.
Detroit Electric is the brainchild of Albert Lam, a former director at the British carmaker Lotus. The headquarters of this aspiring Tesla Inc. are in Hong Kong, but its website boasts there’s also a “state-of-the-art vehicle development and manufacturing base” in Leamington Spa, England, which is roughly 15 miles from Aston Martin’s headquarters.
My various attempts to reach the company for comment were unsuccessful. The latest available accounts of Detroit Electric’s U.K. subsidiary show a loss and net liabilities for the 2017 financial year, while indicating that financial support from group companies remained available.
Aston Martin appears to be the disadvantaged party here but the credibility of its management has taken another knock. The shares have collapsed by almost 75 percent since October as it’s dawned on investors that the company might not be as resilient as it made out at the time of the public listing.
A slowdown in sales volumes in its wholesale business has put a dent in any aspirations to take on Ferrari and to be valued like a luxury goods company rather than a petrol-fueled metal-basher. It also makes the decision not to bolster the balance sheet with new money at the time of the listing seem reckless.
Aston Martin generates little cash but has almost 850 million pounds of net debt and lease liabilities. Thus 20 million pounds is a lot of money to simply go astray. Its flattering accounting – the company capitalizes almost all of its development costs, instead of expensing them in its profit statement – can’t paper over these flaws.
As with those r&d costs, Aston Martin was perfectly within its rights to book the income from Detroit Electric when it did. But it took a while to admit the contract was a bust. Next time a company tells you it’s had an unexpected windfall, be sure to check the money’s in the bank.